Talk:Agnes Mariam de la Croix

Biased?
biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.245.47 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please could you be more specific in your concerns about the article. Philip Cross (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * seems pretty fair to me - underplays her role as assad regime apologist probably, though I very much doubt that is what the ip is getting at - Sayerslle (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Earlier, I reverted edits by User:Motheram who may, or may not, have a conflict of inteerst in editing this article. This user's edits (so far exclusively concerning this article) removed some properly sourced material. In addition, the editor added details which do not appear to be in the public domain and included comments which are the POV of this user rather than being properly neutral. Philip Cross (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Very biased article
This article is very biased, and the whole thing basically serves as a smear campaign against Mother Agnes Mariam. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Examples please. Philip Cross (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * this from an ip who wrote about baniyas 'al Qaeda did it' in an edit summary - so may not be most balanced judge of npov on scw related articles - human rights watch didn't say al Qaeda did it Sayerslle (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant comment, Sayerslle, stick to the subject or scram!


 * To the subject, everything beneath the label "Syrian Civil War" on the article is just negative, smear and unsubstantiated allegations, there is no balance whatsoever. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 'stick to the subject or scram' - thuggish language. ah well. I think you should bring specific sentences, issues, - its very slapdash and broad brush your dismissal of the article - and scram yourself! take the first sentence -'Mother Agnes Mariam has been alleged to have been involved in a Syrian government plot to kill the French journalist Gilles Jacquier who lost his life in Homs during 2012. A book written by his widow and two colleagues, in which the accusations are made, has led Mother Agnes to sue for defamation ' - its part of her biography, its reliably sourced, - if its 'negative' that is not  a policy based reason to censor it.- also I notice you were told to not drag your personal analysis into wp articles - 'it has never been a "civil war" in Syria' - seemingly ignorant that wp is guided by RS , and they do routinely  speak of a civil war. wp is not to be , or should not be,  guided by what you reckon about stuff. ReliableSources.  Sayerslle (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Stick to the subject of leave, You better read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem - Now scram! 212.181.160.22 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * you scram too! you are cheeky. give specific examples please or stoop being rude. Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm being rude?! It's rude to remind rude users of the rules of the site they are misusing now?! Losing your "cool", eh? Are you the author of this garbage article, is that why you react like this? As I said, everything under the label "Syrian Civil War" is denigration, libel and slander. If you want me to list specifically, I would just quote that entire chunk of ASCII diarrhea here. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if one wishes to contribute to the encyclopedia one is told about RS, reliable sources, your views on the subject of the scw or this nun are immaterial - also if one wishes to contribute one should spell correctly - and it is diarrhoea, from the ancient Greek I believe, 'flowing through', - - now this may have been a slip, I notice I spelt 'stop'  as 'stoop' above and this was poor form of me also. if you are just slagging the whole section off, then blame the reportage that is to be culled from RS, and not the editors. she has really made no secret of her views about the ghouta chemical attack etc, and hezbollah - are you saying this is all invented.  this is this nun talking to RT -  'I have carefully studied the footage, and I will present a written analysis on it a bit later. I maintain that the whole affair was a frame-up. It had been staged and prepared in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator. ' - that's her views  o.k. - however disgraceful and unbelievable we may find them, and regard reports delineating her as the author of these statements as  mere denigration and slander, - she really seems to have said this kind of thing - heres a link for an interview she gave to RT - the mouthpiece for the Putin regime - mother chemical  fraud  Sayerslle (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "RT - the mouthpiece for the Putin regime" - Thank you, That shows that you are 100% BIAS. What do you call CNN, Fox News, BBC, MSNBC... They are all known to have to Clear all their major material with CIA and the White House before broadcasting/Publishing? What do you call al-Qaed..Al Jazeera, the Qatar dictatorships propaganda organ? There is a WP rule that says that there must be a balance on the negative and positive in articles on WP, I do not remember what it's called atm, but that rule has not been applied here. I do not consider her words about Hezbollah as something damaging, on the contrary, but it's presented as something that "should" be damaging in the article. About the accusation with alleged "involvement" in some "plot" to kill Gilles Jacquier, WP should not publish unsubstantiated accusations until verdict have fallen, everything else is libel/slander. One person claims something, that's all, I can write a book that says Obama murdered my grandmother, would you quote that on Obama's WP page? It's ridiculous and only put there to deflame. It seems important to mention that Mother Agnes Mariam has "has no formal training in analysing video evidence or the use of chemical weapons", but Elliot Higgins AKA Brown Moses and Dan Kaszeta, both of which have never even been in Syria are taken as "experts" even though they have has no formal training in analysing video evidence or the use of chemical weapons. The article about Mother Agnes Mariam serves as a defamation, nothing else. I would not be surprised if the article is written by someone that sits in his mother basement in the Zionist Occupied parts of Palestine. Also, it's spelled diarrhea, you might look it up and learn something. If you can substantiate otherwise I suggest you rewrite the article about diarrhea here on WP. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if you can get a book on Obama published and discussed in RS, it could be mentioned on wp- seems a way off, as you appear to string clichés and insults together merely - a writer has to think for himself I should have thought, as a prerequisite. and not just repeat Hezbollah clichés and propaganda maybe?Sayerslle (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything on the subject, or are you just gonna continue to break WP Rules? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks 212.181.160.22 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Agnes Mariam de la Croix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220025236/http://stopwar.org.uk/statements/stop-the-war-statement-mother-agnes-and-the-international-anti-war-conference-on-30-november-2013 to http://stopwar.org.uk/statements/stop-the-war-statement-mother-agnes-and-the-international-anti-war-conference-on-30-november-2013

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)